Palin's "Boycott Copenhagen" Op-Ed: Annotated

Once again, the Washington Post has given Sarah Palin the chance to harness herself to the political story of the hour. The former Alaska governor has written an op-ed, published Wednesday, about the "Climate-gate" controversy at East Anglia University. Palin calls on President Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate summit because the leaked e-mails allegedly cast significant doubt on the scientific consensus about global warming.

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center
in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a
tipping point.

By "radical," Palin means the overwhelming scientific consensus; virtually every major science academy in the country; "tipping point" is a curious construction. It implies that there is momentum behind their cause. I gather Palin means to suggest the opposite.

The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate
change experts allows the American public to finally understand the
concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

Remember, the "revelation" was born from an potentially illegal e-mail
hack. "So-called" -- untrue. These are experts. Their science has been
validated, independently. Their "actions" here consist of insulting
climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising
a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and
peer-reviewed journals. The "concerns" that Palin speaks of are the
result of years of accumulated science denialism that now,
conveniently, has been seemingly "validated" by the fog of a grand
conspiracy, suddenly revealed.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known,
exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose
work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference.

True
-- although the politicization came about as a response to an extremely
well-funded political campaign by those whose bottom lines would be
most harmed by carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and the like.

The
agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the
weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

A classic conflation here of "weather" and climate; it's ridiculous to
try and change the weather, of course -- weather is so variable and
unpredictable. What the Copenhagen negotiators want to change is
humanity's contribution to global climate change. Two different things.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately
destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global
temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them
from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents
show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some
scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of
temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that
more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

For a sensible take on what the e-mails actually show, see here. A few quick points: some of the e-mails discuss deleting
data; there are investigations underway to determine whether data was
deleted; there is no evidence that data was manipulated, aside from
words deliberately taken out of context, like "trick" and "contain."

Now
-- the scientists may be guilty of misconduct for manipulating the
UK's freedom of information act procedures. There is no excuse for
that; that is not how normal science works. Let's assume, for the
moment, that their actions do cast doubt on their data, because,
perhaps, their motivations are suspect. The global warming consensus
minus the East Anglia contributions is still a strong consensus, one
that has been regularly, repeatedly and independently verified.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed
in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on
sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand
against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its
decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the
fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got
clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I
stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list
under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the
Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's
economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for
responsible development.

Except that politics is motivating the critics as much as it is the
"radical environmental" crowd. And the "science" against AGW --
anthropogenic global warning -- is based on fitting into a grand theory
the bits of data noise and occasionally unconventional results that
scientists do get. In other words, AGW is supported by the research --
it is a theory of probability (not certainty) that is large enough to
account for discrepancies, too. The case against AGW is supported by a
theory that seizes on the discrepancies, magnifies them, and disregards
the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good
environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and
benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny
the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact
of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our
only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a
subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend
common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing
permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and
infrastructure.

Of
course, that's what politics is -- figuring out who gets what and who
pays for it. The language Palin is using -- cost and benefits -- is
generally associated with opponents of environmental legislation. But
while it's fair enough to call for a more rigorous debate about what
our response to global warming should be, it's difficult to get beyond
Palin's general dismissal of the science.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities
cause weather changes.

The
"natural variation" canard; the fact is that the trends we're seeing
now aren't natural and don't seem cyclical, and AGW, as noted above, is
a theory of probability; based on the evidence, it is virtually certain
that humans are causing a significant amount of climate (not weather!) change over time. As Grist's experts put it,

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed,
internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now
observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions.
Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect
the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich
cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a
dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice
core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

We can say, however, that any potential benefits
of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their
economic costs.

One
can say that; the economic evidence is equivocal and politicized. It
is by no means certain, however, that the economic costs will be far
worse than the benefits, in part because the statement demands a
definition of "economic costs." Some policies could be ineffective,
inefficient and expensive. Others might not be.

And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China
and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to
increase their emissions -- President Obama has proposed serious cuts
in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would
require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax proposals, which will result
in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the
campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these
days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's
cap-and-tax plans, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to
regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the
American people.

Thank the Supreme Court for that end run!

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate
change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after
it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament
recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow
suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

The jury is out on the case of Europe. It seems to have reduced carbon
emissions, but energy costs did rise. However, it is by no means clear
whether the cap and trade system in Europe was optimally designed, and
whether the energy cost increase wasn't the result of exogenous
factors, like, say, war in the Middle East.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to
"restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home
from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not
be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped
the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes
of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the
American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen
is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a
political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation
that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for
such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

This is boilerplate. Accept or reject.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should
be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The
president should boycott Copenhagen.

He won't.

Remember, the "revelation" was born from an potentially illegal e-mail
hack. "So-called" -- untrue. These are experts. Their science has been
validated, independently. Their "actions" here consist of insulting
climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising
a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and
peer-reviewed journals. The "concerns" that Palin speaks of are the
result of years of accumulated science denialism that now,
conveniently, has been seemingly "validated" by the fog of a grand
conspiracy, suddenly revealed.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known,
exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose
work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference.

True
-- although the politicization came about as a response to an extremely
well-funded political campaign by those whose bottom lines would be
most harmed by carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and the like.

The
agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the
weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

A classic conflation here of "weather" and climate; it's ridiculous to
try and change the weather, of course -- weather is so variable and
unpredictable. What the Copenhagen negotiators want to change is
humanity's contribution to global climate change. Two different things.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately
destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global
temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them
from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents
show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some
scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of
temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that
more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

For a sensible take on what the e-mails actually show, see here. A few quick points: some of the e-mails discuss deleting
data; there are investigations underway to determine whether data was
deleted; there is no evidence that data was manipulated, aside from
words deliberately taken out of context, like "trick" and "contain."

Now
-- the scientists may be guilty of misconduct for manipulating the
UK's freedom of information act procedures. There is no excuse for
that; that is not how normal science works. Let's assume, for the
moment, that their actions do cast doubt on their data, because,
perhaps, their motivations are suspect. The global warming consensus
minus the East Anglia contributions is still a strong consensus, one
that has been regularly, repeatedly and independently verified.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed
in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on
sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand
against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its
decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the
fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got
clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I
stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list
under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the
Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's
economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for
responsible development.

Except that politics is motivating the critics as much as it is the
"radical environmental" crowd. And the "science" against AGW --
anthropogenic global warning -- is based on fitting into a grand theory
the bits of data noise and occasionally unconventional results that
scientists do get. In other words, AGW is supported by the research --
it is a theory of probability (not certainty) that is large enough to
account for discrepancies, too. The case against AGW is supported by a
theory that seizes on the discrepancies, magnifies them, and disregards
the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good
environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and
benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny
the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact
of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our
only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a
subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend
common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing
permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and
infrastructure.

Of
course, that's what politics is -- figuring out who gets what and who
pays for it. The language Palin is using -- cost and benefits -- is
generally associated with opponents of environmental legislation. But
while it's fair enough to call for a more rigorous debate about what
our response to global warming should be, it's difficult to get beyond
Palin's general dismissal of the science.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities
cause weather changes.

The
"natural variation" canard; the fact is that the trends we're seeing
now aren't natural and don't seem cyclical, and AGW, as noted above, is
a theory of probability; based on the evidence, it is virtually certain
that humans are causing a significant amount of climate (not weather!) change over time. As Grist's experts put it,

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed,
internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now
observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions.
Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect
the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich
cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a
dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice
core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

We can say, however, that any potential benefits
of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their
economic costs.

One
can say that; the economic evidence is equivocal and politicized. It
is by no means certain, however, that the economic costs will be far
worse than the benefits, in part because the statement demands a
definition of "economic costs." Some policies could be ineffective,
inefficient and expensive. Others might not be.

And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China
and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to
increase their emissions -- President Obama has proposed serious cuts
in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would
require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax proposals, which will result
in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the
campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these
days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's
cap-and-tax plans, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to
regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the
American people.

Thank the Supreme Court for that end run!

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate
change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after
it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament
recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow
suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

The jury is out on the case of Europe. It seems to have reduced carbon
emissions, but energy costs did rise. However, it is by no means clear
whether the cap and trade system in Europe was optimally designed, and
whether the energy cost increase wasn't the result of exogenous
factors, like, say, war in the Middle East.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to
"restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home
from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not
be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped
the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes
of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the
American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen
is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a
political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation
that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for
such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

This is boilerplate. Accept or reject.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should
be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The
president should boycott Copenhagen.

He won't.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Marc Ambinder is an Atlantic contributing editor. He is also a senior contributor at Defense One, a contributing editor at GQ, and a regular contributor at The Week.